ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Focused-Ion-Beam Artifacts and Evidence Reliability in Advanced Microscopy of Energy Materials.
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Focused-ion-beam scanning electron microscopy (FIB-SEM) provides site-specific access to buried interfaces, particle interiors, porous electrode architectures, and localized degradation regions in energy materials. This capability is particularly valuable for rechargeable batteries, solid-state ion conductors, alkali-metal electrodes, and reactive solid-liquid interfaces, where the structures governing transport and failure are rarely exposed at a free surface. However, the preparation and imaging steps that reveal these regions may also alter them. Ion milling, environmental transfer, vacuum exposure, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), cryogenic handling, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), electron energy-loss spectroscopy (EELS), and atom probe tomography (APT) can each modify local morphology, chemistry, or phase state. These effects are especially important when the intended evidence involves light elements, metastable phases, nanoscale coatings, reactive interphases, volatile species, or ion-conducting materials. This perspective develops a claim-specific framework for evaluating such results. Preparation- and imaging-induced changes are related to the material feature being interpreted and to the minimum control needed to distinguish the two origins. For porous electrodes, the relevant outputs include pore volume, connectivity, tortuosity, crack geometry, phase fraction, and active surface area. For reactive interfaces and solid electrolytes, the critical questions concern alkali-metal redistribution, surface amorphization, light-element contrast, implanted-species chemistry, and beam-induced phase formation. The discussion further compares conventional Ga-FIB, cryogenic FIB, Xe plasma FIB, low-energy Ar+ polishing, broad-ion-beam preparation, ultramicrotomy, and repeated particle-oriented FIB workflows. Reliable interpretation requires the preparation route, transfer conditions, imaging dose, analytical acquisition, and claim-specific controls to be reported together with the final microscopy result.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.